Speculators cut bets that GOP will take over U.S. House

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 5:59 pm, May 22, 2010

Speculators at Intrade.com are giving Republicans a 39.4% chance of retaking the U.S. House of Representatives this fall, down from over 50% on a few days ago. They’re giving the GOP a 15% chance of taking over the U.S. Senate, up a bit from a few days ago.

Look for new polls that include Dan Maes, Andrew Romanoff

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 5:46 pm, May 22, 2010

Polls matching Scott McInnis against John Hickenlopper and Jane Norton and Ken Buck against Michael Bennet are obsolete.
The results of delegates’ votes at the Republicans’ and Democrats’ state assemblies Saturday gave a small victory to GOP gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes over Scott McInnis (49.4%-48.9%) and a big one to Democrat U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff over Bennet (60.4%-39.6%).
This means Rasmussen Reports, an independent polling organization, and Public Policy Polling, which works for Democrats, need to rerun their polls that pit both Scott McInnis and Dan Maes against Democrat John Hickenlooper and both Bennet and Romanoff against Ken Buck, Jane Norton and Tom Wiens.

Andrew Romanoff playing Scott Brown to Michael Bennet’s Martha Coakley?

by Kelly Maher | 4:56 pm, May 22, 2010

U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff told delegates at the Colorado Democratic Party state assembly today that he would support his rival, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, if Bennet wins the August primary. But Romanoff (who later won top line on that ballot…

Why did Ken Buck get only 77% of votes to Cleve Tidwell’s 15%?

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 3:08 pm, May 22, 2010

Another big surprise out of the Colorado Republicans’ state assembly. Tea Party and social issues candidate, Ken Buck received only 77% of the votes to Clive Tidwell’s 15%. And Jane Norton wasn’t even on the ballot. 
What happened?

Why did Ken Buck get only 77% of votes to Clive Tidwell’s 15%?

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 3:07 pm, May 22, 2010

Another big surprise out of the Colorado Republicans’ state assembly. Tea Party and social issues candidate, Ken Buck, received only 77% of the votes to Clive Tidwell’s 15%. And Jane Norton wasn’t even on the ballot. 
What happened?

Dan Maes 1,741 (49.4%), Scott McInnis 1,725 (48.9%); J.J. Ament 78%; Ali Hasan 20%

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 2:41 pm, May 22, 2010

Now we know why Scott McInnis had his daughter schedule her wedding for this afternoon. He doesn’t want to show his face. The excuse that the wedding date was set two years ago and couldn’t have been changed when McInnis entered the gubernatorial race to last month or next month doesn’t wash for me. UPDATE: Let’s be charitable. Maybe McInnis wanted the wedding to be held today so he could victoriously lead the bride down the aisle? Man, what a downer for the McInnis family on what should be a special day. Talk about blowing it!
In a big win for the Tea Party, 9/12 Groups and other doubters of establishment Republicans, Dan Maes got 1,741, or 49.35% of the delegates’ votes for governor at the Colorado GOP’s state assembly; Scott McInnis got 1,725, or 48.89%. In the state Treasure’s race, J.J. Ament kept Ali Hasan off the ballot by winning 78% of the delegates’ votes to Hasan’s 20%. At Monday’s CD-7 assembly, Hasan told me he would get 40% of the vote and Ament would get about 40%.
Will Hasan make the mistake of petitioning on to the ballot? He probably will try. Walker Stapleton also is trying to petition on to the ballot for the Aug. 10 Treasurer’s primary, but despite his deep pockets, I think he’d have a hard time beating Ament.
Maes has won despite dismal fundraising and a few stumbles along the way. Putting some 70,000 miles on your car in less than 12 months while attending hundreds of political events can pay off. I think he comes off as being a bit smarter and more honest than McInnis, and he’s willing to talk to both supporters and critics while McInnis is a glad hander who tries to avoid talking issues with supporters or, especially, the media and critics. McInnis is having a hard time making the transition from an obscure Congressional candidate to a closely watched gubernatorial candidate, and he’s having a tough time thickening his very thin skin.
I think that the fact that Scott McInnis has been caught telling too many white lies and that Hasan has run a disingenuous or too cute and clever campaign, to put it politely, has cost them. They’ve been punished. Hope they understand and have learned their lessons. 
Lynn Bartels reports GOP assembly votes here.
To get on the ballot, candidates need to win 30% of the delegates’ votes. If they win between 10% and 30% of the votes, they can petition onto the ballot. If they don’t participate in the assembly, they can petition on the ballot. Jane Norton and Tom Wiens are attempting to petition onto the GOP’s primary Senate ballot.
Reminder: I don’t have candidates in any of the GOP primaries, but I have opinions about all of the candidates. And while I want Republicans to win, I will not compromise my values and principles to enable or elect candidates I consider incompetent or dishonest. Am I perfect judge of people? No. I owned a business too long to be perfect. And I voted for Carter, Clinton and Ritter, but I only made those mistakes once each.
I’ve interviewed McInnis and Maes, and I’ve heard them speak many times. To see my coverage of each man, search this site for their last names.

Andrew Romanoff 60.4%; Michael Bennet 39.6%

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 2:35 pm, May 22, 2010

Andrew Romanoff won 60.4%, Michael Bennet 39.4% of votes at Democrats’ assembly in Broomfield, reports Michael Booth. That means Romanoff and Bennet will fight it out in the Aug. 10 primary for the Democrats’ nomination to the U.S. Senate.

Backbone Radio, May 23, 2010: Don Boudreaux, world markets, primary elections, and Colorado assemblies

by Rossputin | 1:03 pm, May 22, 2010

Please join me by listening to (and calling in to) this week’s Backbone Radio program from 5 PM to 8 PM  on 710 AM KNUS in Denver and 1460 AM KZNT in Colorado Springs.

If you’re not in range of the radio waves, you should be able to listen to the show online by clicking HERE.

My guest host this week will be Christopher Sanders, political and business consultant, former hedge fund manager, former staffer for the California state legislature, and former Napa County sheriff’s deputy…a man of no few and no small opinions.

From 5:30 – 6:30, we’ll be joined by Don Boudreaux, professor of economics and until recently chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University.  Don, along with Russ Roberts (whom you may hear with some regularity on NPR), runs the excellent economics blog Cafe Hayek (http://cafehayek.com).

Don is an unabashed supporter of “open borders”, among many other ultra-libertarian positions (most of which I share, though not his views on immigration.)  So we’ll talk to him about immigration, but also about free-market economics and the consistent and dangerous misunderstanding of basic principles, such as the value of free trade, which permeates the media and the citizenry.

It should be a fascinating conversation and I hope you’ll join in it with your calls or e-mails.

For the next 90 minutes, Christopher and I, and hopefully you as well, will discuss several major topics, particularly the incredible volatility in international financial markets, what it means about and for economics and politics, perhaps wondering aloud how far away we are from becoming Greece write large.  We’ll also talk about Saturday’s Colorado assemblies and this week’s primary elections around the country, discussing various races in a rapid-fire way, perhaps offering you insights you haven’t heard elsewhere about what the election results mean – and what they don’t mean.

Again, I encourage listener participation so please call, e-mail, or instant message me, and join in the conversation.

The studio call-in number is 303-696-1971.  Add it to your speed dial!

Also, I will check e-mail during the show, so feel free to e-mail me at ross (at) 710knus.com (click on that text to open an e-mail to me!)  And, as always, you can instant message me from my website at http://rossputin.com or to AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) screen name Rossputin.

New research shows “global warming” has not and will not increase spread of malaria

by Rossputin | 5:14 am, May 22, 2010

A new study by lead researchers from Oxford and the University of Florida, described in a letter in the May 20, 2010 edition of Nature magazine, argues that a century of global warming has not increased the spread of malaria and that any likely increase in the malaria parasite growth rate which might be caused by warming is dominated by human efforts to control the disease (among other things.)

The study, entitled “Climate change and the global malaria recession” makes two critical points:

• “(W)idespread claims that rising mean temperatures have already led to increases in worldwide malaria morbidity and mortality are largely at odds with observed decreasing global trends in both its endemicity and geographic extent.” In other words, malaria is less prevalent almost everywhere on earth than it was at the beginning of the 20th century despite net planetary warming during that time.
• “(T)he proposed future effects of rising temperatures on endemicity are at least one order of magnitude smaller than changes observed since about 1900 and up to two orders of magnitude smaller than those that can be achieved by the effective scale-up of key control measures.” For those of you who missed algebra, an “order of magnitude” means 10 to the power of that number.  So, one order of magnitude larger means 10 times larger. Two orders of magnitude means 100 times larger. Three means 1000 times larger, etc.  In other words, those who claim that global warming will increase the spread of malaria are missing factors which are roughly 100 times more powerful and working in the direction of decreasing the spread of the disease.

As the researchers note, “A simple interpretation of the observed global recession in malaria since 1900 is that non-climatic factors, primarily direct disease control and the indirect effects of a century of urbanization and economic development, although spatially and temporally variable, have exerted a substantially greater influence on the geographic extent and intensity of malaria worldwide during the twentieth century than have climatic factors.”

The research fits will with the argument that gloom-and-doom scenarios posited by global warmists ignore any possibility, indeed the 100% probability, that humans can and will adapt to environmental changes, just as we have for the millions of years during which we have existed as a species.

One need look no further than the fact that heat-related deaths in America have steadily dropped over recent decades as air conditioning became ubiquitous and people figured out that working too hard in extreme heat was a bad idea.  As was mentioned at the recent Heartland Institute conference, the heat wave that killed 15,000 people in France in 2003 was during a summer had high temperatures over 104 degrees (Farenheit, obviously) for a week.  This happens every summer throughout much of Arizona, Nevada, parts of California, Texas, New Mexico, etc.  Yet we don’t have thousands of people dying because we have adapted to summer heat where necessary.  Now the French have, too.

Eskimos have adapted to one type of climate, the Touaregs to an entirely different one.  The idea that humans will sit idly by and let a one or two or even five degree temperature change cause us to die by the thousands or millions is a thought that could only enter the mind of a Progressive; the fundamental premise of Progressivism is that the average person is stupid and can’t be left to make decisions for himself.  (The more important the decision, the less it should be left to someone who didn’t go to an Ivy League college, of course.)

This new research, while not surprising to me, is a nice little reminder of the ability of humans to attack disease and generally to adapt to our environments – or make our environments adapt to us.

One important addendum to this story:

I had an interesting e-mail conversation with one of the researchers for the study, David Smith, Ph.D. of the University of Florida’s Emerging Pathogens Institute.  Smith made it clear that he is a true believer in man-made global warming:

IMO, the evidence for warming and for its anthropogenic cause is very compelling. I’ve read at least one of the IPCC reports cover to cover, and I read much of the primary literature on this. You’re bucking a very broad scientific consensus, lots of compelling evidence, and the lack of any really credible alternative explanations.

It was a rather ironic statement from a guy who had said this just half an hour earlier:

Science is intrinsically adversarial, and we get at the truth through critical thought. That means scientists should question every single study they read. The fact that our study disagrees with other studies simply means that this is an active area of investigation. Science comes to a consensus about what the science says after a longish process of examining and re-examing the data, usually after it’s been analyzed a half dozen times. It’s worth having a healthy respect for this process, and that means that science reporting would ideally present the results with a healthy degree of skepticism. It’s not just “he said she said.” It’s worth trying to convey some of the texture of the argument.

When I suggested to Dr. Smith that there are absolutely credible alternative explanations which might be worth his time to read, and when I pointed him to online papers and speeches on the topic, his response was “Should I be allocating lots of my time to creationism, too?”

In other words – and I loved the debate with Dr. Smith because it so perfectly framed the way warmists think – science and scientific theories should be approached with skepticism, and disagreement among scientists is useful and healthy and helps get us closer to the right answers, except when it comes to global warming in which case the consensus is all that matters.

You might be wondering what Smith’s motivation behind writing the article is, given that he’s a believer in anthropogenic global warming and thus presumably of many of the policy prescriptions which emanate from that particular religion. We have an answer to that question since Smith introduced his article me with this:

The main humanitarian fact driving us is that malaria is still one of the leading causes of childhood mortality in Africa. Right now we’re on the cusp of putting a dent in African malaria for the first time in history. I think our article shows that malaria is one of those problems that can be solved. This is a message that we’re trying to put out there. The problem is that it won’t be solved on its own, and that the people who are suffering can’t afford the remedy. Most of them don’t make enough money to buy antimalarial drugs, much less a $10 bednet. Malaria needs an investment from donor countries, probably 7-10 billion dollars per year. That would amount to a very small investment for a very big payoff. The burden of malaria is the salient point facing malaria today, and almost everything else in malaria should follow from that, IMO.

I salute Smith’s humanitarian impulse and completely agree with his emphasis that preventing (and to a lesser degree treating) malaria can be a relatively inexpensive project, at least compared to many other things that governments do.

So, when Smith again asked me to “remind me why I should spend my time (as a scientist) spending any more time on this enterprise than I do on creationism” I offered a response which I thought would resonate with him: “You should spend more time on this than on creationism because this is being used as the basis for massive public policy changes, changes which will make the lives of you and your children much poorer and less free, and changes which will so drain our nation’s and the world’s financial capabilities as to damage the funding for things like malaria prevention, treatment and eradication.”

His answer to this, as well as to the evidence I was showing him of the corruption in the peer-review process surrounding climate change publishing by “skeptics”, was to say that complaints about peer-review corruption are just “sour grapes” and to end our conversation by saying “I’ve now spent too much time on this.”

The fanatical religion that is man-made (or rather Mann-made) global warming (“AGW”) now needs effective treatment similar to that which Dr. Smith and friends have brought to attacking the scourge of malaria. Unfortunately, part of the diseased AGW mindset is an ability to say that AGW does not need to be subjected to the same scrutiny that a scientist would apply to any other scientific question.  It’s going to be a very hard disease to treat, sort of like freeing people who were assimilated into The Borg in Star Trek: The Next Generation.

A follower of the cult of Algore  – he used to seem so rational

Colo. Republican State Assembly 2010 – Live Blogging: JJ Ament Crushes Hasan with over 79% for Solo on GOP Ballot; Maes edges McInnis; Buck gets 76.56

by Laura Victoria | 5:00 am, May 22, 2010

UPDATE:  Maes edges McInnis 49.35 to 48.8 for top line on ballot, 3,528 votes cast. JJ Ament ousts Ali Hasan for Treasurer for sole GOP ballot spot gaining a stunning 79% of the vote.  Ken Buck gets 76.5%, eliminating all other opponents but petitioning Jane Norton and Tom Wiens. I am still undecided for Governor [...]

Clear The Bench Colorado movement to restore accountability to Colorado Supreme Court gains momentum, resounding response

by CTBC Director | 3:03 am, May 22, 2010

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” – Abraham Lincoln
Clear The Bench Colorado has succeeded – through sheer drive and determination (and the support of growing numbers of concerned Colorado citizens) – in raising awareness [...]

GOP District Assembly

by Al Maurer | 10:57 pm, May 21, 2010

Today was the day for district assemblies for the Colorado  Republican Party.  The race for my congressional district is uncontested–Doug Lamborn is rated the most conservative member of the House–so I didn’t expect much to be happening. I was wrong. In District 3, political newcomer and grassroots candidate Bob McConnell pulled 45% of the vote [...]

32 States Borrow From Fed To Pay Unemployment

by Rich Bratten | 6:10 pm, May 21, 2010

Below is a link to a report that says 32 states have borrowed from the federal government to make unemployment payments. Following are some initial impressions that only an actuary (or other number oriented, critically thinking persons) would note: Twelve of these states have borrowed $1 billion or more. 11 out of those 12 states [...]

Cory Gardner will not face primary

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 5:09 pm, May 21, 2010

Cory Gardner 359
Tom Lucero 110
Dean Madere 129
Sue Sharkey, regent, 513
Kelly Barlean 76
590 votes cast

Colorado GOP State Assembly May 22, 2010

by elpresidente | 4:16 pm, May 21, 2010

Assembly rules and directions from the Colorado GOP.

Friday market comment

by Rossputin | 2:54 pm, May 21, 2010

Since I commented on the stock market yesterday afternoon, I’ll add a note today as well.

Today was options expiration.  For an options trader (like me), the last few days of an options expiration week are extremely intense, the equivalent of the playoffs in sports perhaps.

Volatility was extremely high yesterday so I took the opportunity to sell some out of the money puts and calls.  I didn’t sell very many because with the market making moves as large as it’s been making lately, I didn’t want to make a bet so big that it could really hurt me if today were another crazy day.

And while the range in the market was again very large, about 36 points in the S&P 500 futures and about 275 points in the Dow Jones Indusrial average futures from top to bottom, it was roughly evenly distributed around the break-even point. In other words, the low in the S&P futures was about down 18 and the high was about up 18, so I never got particularly “squeezed” on my bets yesterday that we wouldn’t move 400 points or more today.

What was particularly interesting today was the opening.  Stock index futures had mostly been trading down around 9 or 10 points prior to the official market open.  Then, when the market opened at 7:30 AM Mountain Time, futures immediately traded down 18 points. To me, this represented the first thing that felt like a panic “blow-off” bottom and I thought it was caused partly by S&P 500 baskets for sale on the open but primarily by some of the last “weak longs” being scared out of the market.  My feeling was strengthened by the fact that commodities and currencies were essentially flat (unchanged in price) and trading in a rather boring way at the time…and remained so for most of the day, drifting over the course of the day from slightly up to slightly down (in terms of many commodities and the US dollar), but within mostly narrow ranges.

The open was the low for the day.  The market went up about 20 S&P points, or 175 DJIA points more or less in a straight line over the next 40 minutes. They then gave back about half of that gain followed by a 90 minute rally to the highs for the day.  Most of the rest of the day, from about 10 AM Mountain Timewas in, by recent standards, a narrow range with a slow steady downward bias, getting us to about unchanged on the day with about 20 minutes to go before the closing bell.  At that time, the market would have learned of the end-of-day market imbalances created by index option traders who have PM-expiring positions (such as OEX, the S&P 100).  Those imbalances (I presume) were to buy, causing a sudden rapid spike in the S&P and Dow, with the former rallying about 16 points and then backing off to up about 14 points at the close. (The Dow rally was about 130 points.)

The beauty of options expiration is that the slate gets wiped clean of that month’s options so, at least for those of us who mostly trade front month options, we can come into the next week with little or no position.  (The only options position I have coming in is short a few of the S&P “weekly” puts which expire next Friday. In order to lose money on them, the market would have to drop more than 20% next week.  Oh, I’m also short a tiny quantity of SLV – silver ETF – calls as a small hedge against a silver mining stock I own.)

Another interesting change on Friday was the crushing of VIX options.   VIX, the CBOE volatility index, is still very high at 40, though down almost 6 points from yesterday.  However, VIX futures, which represent the “real” market in VIX are trading about 35.75, down only 20 cents on the day.  The lack of movement in the VIX future today killed the implied volatility in the VIX options, meaning…and I realize this concept might give you a headache…that the market lowered its estimate of the volatility of the volatility.  Even with the VIX options down today, the implied volatility of the volatility is huge, with the market betting that theVIX will likely move at least 10 points over the next month…that’s 10 points on a base number of about 35.  So the forecast volatility of the volatility is still very high even though much lower than yesterday.  (To be sure, this is an oversimplification, but it gives the sense of the scale of what’s going on in the market right now.)

I have very little conviction on the market here.  A lot of “technical” damage has been done and the new financial regulation rules are very bad for future earnings for banks and future credit availability for companies and individuals, so it’s hard for me to think the market has a lot of upside potential, at least until it becomes clear that the GOP will take back a majority in at least one house of Congress in the November election.

I wish you all a great weekend and hope you’ll take a deep breath with me now that this rather insane expiration week is over.

Liveblogging Cory Gardner, Tom Lucero, Dean Madere at CD-4 Assembly

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 2:06 pm, May 21, 2010

The Embassy Suites in Loveland is packed with Republicans from four Congressional districts. I’m live blogging the most contested district, CD-4. Cory Gardner is hoping to keep Tom Lucero and Dean Madeare off the Aug. 10 primary ballot. 
State GOP Chairman Dick Wahdams says that who is nominated by the GOP will be the next Congressman from CD-4.
Wadhams tells me that Rand Paul, the controversial GOP Senate candidate in Kentucky, will have to back track on his assertion that businesses should have the right to discriminate against customers for any reason. The issue will blow over and “he’ll be ok,” Wadhams predicted.
The assembly is taking care of official business. Then it will nominate regents and finally Congressional candidates.
Preliminary: 546 delegates.
Jane Norton gets cool reception. Repeats her speech that outlines her positions as outline on her web site. More applause when she’s done.
Scott McInnis. Hick is phasing out tax increases. Hickenlooper supports open borders and sanctuary cities. Repeats his positions on abortion, illegals, TABOR, taxes and unions.
Ken Buck gets standing ovation from home district crowd. Makes strong statement on border security. Support senators like Jim DeMint who want to fight big government. Several delegates stand and applaud after he finishes.
Senate candidate, Steve Barton, speaks about currency devaluation and need to reduce the deficit.
State Treasurer candidate Ali Hasan. Uses his prop and talks about bail out banks. 
State Treasurer candidate J. J. Ament gets big home district cheer. Sells his expertise and record. Crowd supports him.
Dan Maes gets standing ovation from six or seven delegates. Sells his plan, which is described on his web site. Like Norton and McInnis, promises to move against illegal immigration. Hot topic here. Gets standing O from about 20 delegates.
Former CD-4 Rep. and Senate candidate, Bob Schaffer, gets warm welcome. Says he misses Rep.Mariyln Musgrave, who was beat by Betsy Markey (D-CD 4). Gives award to Musgrave. Show film clip of Musgrave promo. GOP death wish or what?
John Suthers gets standing O. 
Breadth and scope of federal power will be the issue in 2010 elections. Dems after him for standing up against ObamaCare. There is no healthcare power in the Constitution. Big cheer. There is a commerce power to allow Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but Congress is for first time trying to tell citizens to buy health insurance. If that is upheld by the Courts, federalism will be over. It is a fight well worth fighting. Biggest standing O of the day.
Nominatons for CU regents. Two candidates. I’m not covering that race.
591 delegates credentialed. 177 is the magic number
Cory Gardner is being introduced.
Lots of supporters go to front with him. Dick Brown nominates Gardner. 
Mark Hillman seconds. Weld county Sheriff John Cook seconds.
Cory Gardnet gets standing O from Eastern Plains delegates. Good speaker. Strong campaigner. Impressive. Should be able to beat Markey. Best speaker I’ve heard all year on the campaign trail. Crowd likes the speech.
Tom Lucero nominated by Dan Nenowski (sp), a small business owner.
Jabs Gardner as a former Democrat who campaigned against Bob Schaffer eight years ago.
 

Live blogging Cory Gardner, Tom Lucero, Dean Madere at CD-4 assembly

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 2:06 pm, May 21, 2010

The Embassy Suites in Loveland is packed with Republicans from four Congressional districts. I’m live blogging the most contested district, CD-4. Cory Gardner is hoping to keep Tom Lucero and Dean Madere off the Aug. 10 primary ballot. 
State GOP Chairman Dick Wahdams says that whoever is nominated by the GOP will be the next Congressman from CD-4.
Wadhams tells me that Rand Paul, the controversial GOP Senate candidate in Kentucky, will have to back track on his assertion that businesses should have the right to discriminate against customers for any reason. The issue will blow over and “he’ll be ok,” Wadhams predicted.
The assembly is taking care of official business. Then it will 

Is Chris Dodd an idiot savant or just an idiot?

by Rossputin | 11:21 am, May 21, 2010

In a press conference earlier this morning lauding the passage of his horrendous financial regulation bill by the Senate, Chris Dodd said that legislation must recognize that we live in an interconnected world, Dodd said that problems from “a small country in the Caribbean” can cause troubles around the world.

I have to wonder whether he’s predicting a crisis in Barbados or whether he was describing Greece as being in the Caribbean.

It’s fun to make fun of politicians, especially Democrats, when they make stupid statements, but truthfully even I would bet that Dodd knows that Greece is not very near Puerto Rico.  In the meantime, I’m wondering if there’s some good way to short Caribbean-based company stocks…

GOP candidates must disown Rand Paul’s views on racial discrimination

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 10:38 am, May 21, 2010

Rand Paul, the insurgent GOP candidate for the Senate in Kentucky, is rebranding the GOP with the absurd assertion that restaurants, hotels, retailers and other businesses First Amendment rights should give them the right to discrimate against customers based on their race or whatever. His assertion has created a firestorm of criticism from the left and from the Republican National Committee, as it should. And before Democrats can use Paul’s idiocy to rebrand the GOP, every Republican must disown Paul’s over wrought libertarianism. 
Paul’s made a rookie mistake, and he could become the GOP’s new David Duke. Voters won’t let him get away with this, and they shouldn’t.

SB 191: Devil in the Council’s Details While Harrison Moves Ahead on Evaluations

by Eddie | 10:30 am, May 21, 2010

Yesterday Gov. Bill Ritter signed into law Senate Bill 191. Now all eyes are on the details that will be hashed out by the Governor’s Council on Educator Effectiveness.
The state’s largest teachers union, the Colorado Education Association, carried all the weight of opposing SB 191 and pushed amendments that watered down some of the bill’s [...]

Betsy Markey: Independent voters are “like renters”

by Kelly Maher | 10:15 am, May 21, 2010

Speaking to campaign volunteers in Longmont, U.S. Rep. Betsy Markey, D-Colo., likened independent voters to renters.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7k5iQsZYQs”We all worked very, very hard to get this seat,” Markey said on Saturday in Collyer Park at …

Richard Blumenthal shows that beneath white lies are major character flaws

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 9:31 am, May 21, 2010

Smart voters refuse to support politicians who blatantly tell little white lies and cheat on their wives. Voters  know that behind the little lies are major character flaws. All politicians fudge the truth one way or another, but when leaders like Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Barack Obama blatantly lie, you know that they shouldn’t be trusted or elected.
The Richard Blumenthal case is a prime example, as an editorial, The other Blumenthal scandal; Vietnam deception reflects his public character, in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal points out. After the New York Times exposed the Connecticut attorney general’s lies that he served in Vietnam, the Journal’s editorial writer took another look at his record, and it’s not pretty. 
As expected, the Journal quickly uncovered a pattern of prosecutorial abuse and political favoritism in Blumenthal’s office. He put innocent people out of business, turned them into criminals and ruined lives with outrageous charges in an effort to promote his political career. And he protected Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) when the Senator’s sweetheart mortgage deal with Countrywide put him in danger of being prosecuted. But the court of public opinion forced Dodd into early retirement, and Blumenthal is running for his seat.
The Journal’s editorial concludes
Much like [former NY Governor Eliot] Spitzer’s cavorting with prostitutes while he was New York’s chief law enforcement officer, Mr. Blumenthal’s Vietnam fabrications reflect a larger problem with his public character. Rather than apologize for imagining a war record, the AG copped only to “a few misplaced words” that he said were “totally unintentional”—and he even held his news conference at a Veterans of Foreign Wars hall.
Mr. Blumenthal’s Vietnam problem is all too typical of a sense of entitlement and impunity that has built up over many years of exercising vast power with little restraint. This is not the kind of character that will change Washington.
Beware of politicians who cheat on their wives and are frequently caught telling white lies. They’ll cheat you, too, if you elect them to public offices.

Friday Funny – Iron Man 2 Review

by wesley | 6:36 am, May 21, 2010

Need a good laugh this Friday morning? Larry Correia, one of my favorite fiction writers and author of sci-fi and gun culture thriller Monster Hunter International, tears apart an Iron Man 2 movie review from liberal, self-loathing, self-righteous, proud-to-be-a-victim, naive, feminist Natalie Wilson. She explains how the movie’s gender lessons belittle women and encourage irresponsible [...]

The enemy in our midst

by Rossputin | 5:22 am, May 21, 2010

This story and the video or audio have been fairly “viral” within conservative media, but just in case you haven’t seen it I’m posting it here.  It’s David Horowitz speaking to a member of the Muslim Students Association at the University of California at San Diego last week.  Note her neck scarf…roughly the same pattern as used to be worn on the head of Palestinian terrorist Yasser Arafat.

These people’s speech is rightfully protected, but I do fear that we have a simmering undercurrent of anti-Americanism and extreme anti-Semitism even among our nation’s own Muslim population.  I maintain my view that “radical Islam” is a redundant term, that Islam itself is a radical, violent, conquest-oriented cult which is at least as properly understood as a political construction than a religion.

I also continue to believe that we should limit the ability of people from Muslim countries to come to our nation. They are not American citizens and are not entitled to any sort of guarantee of access to these shores.  In short, people like the girl in the video below are a national security risk and as most of us realize, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fSvyv0urTE&

 

That said, I’m not sure if I’m more afraid of the culture that produces the terrorist sympathizer above versus the incredible idiot below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYnyueBB2A8&

Don Boudreaux on runoff elections

by Rossputin | 4:18 am, May 21, 2010

A fascinating discussion of runoff elections and “collective decision making” by Don Boudreaux, who will be this Sunday’s guest on Backbone Radio:

This morning, part of a radio news program here in Washington featured a discussion of general elections and runoff elections.  The specific context was Democrat Blanche Lincoln’s prospects for re-nomination by her party to stand in November as the Democrats’ candidate for reelection to the U.S. Senate from Arkansas.  If Ms. Lincoln doesn’t get a majority of votes in today’s three-person race for the nomination – and prospects are poor that she’ll clear the 50-percent-vote hurdle – there will be a runoff election for the nomination: the top two vote getters will then go against each other in this follow-up election.

In light of this prospect of a runoff election, one of the radio commentors said off-handedly something like “In a runoff election, voters’ least-favored candidates are eliminated, leaving only the most-favored candidates to challenge each other.”  (I forget the exact wording, but I’m sure that I capture here the essense of what this guy said and meant.)

This point about the nature of a runoff election is not necessarily true.

Suppose there are nine voters.

Voters 1, 2, 3, and 4 each prefer candidate A to candidate C and candidate C to candidate B.  That is, each of these four voters ranks the three candidates as such: A>C>B.

Voters 5, 6, and 7 rank the candidates like this: B>C>A.

Voters 8 and 9 rank the candidates like this: C>B>A.

In the general elecation, A will receive 44.4 percent of the vote (4 of 9 votes cast); B will receive 33.3 percent of the vote (3 of 9 votes cast); and C will receive 22.2 of the vote (2 of the 9 votes cast).

Because no candidate won a majority of the vote in the general election, a runoff election is held between the top two vote-getters from the general election: candidates A and B.

In the runoff election, candidate B will win 55.6 percent of the vote (5 of 9 votes cast).  B will then be sworn into office, presumably as the voters’ preferred candidate.

But look more closely.  Suppose that the candidate who received the fewest votes in the general election – candidate C – were to run against candidate B in a runoff election.  Which of these two candidates would win?  Answer: C.  In such an election, C would win 66.7 percent of the vote (6 of 9 votes cast), thus trouncing candidate B!  Also note that if a runoff election were to pit C against A – the candidate who received the most votes in the general election – C would also defeat A: C would get 55.6 percent of the vote (5 of 9 votes cast) to A’s 44.4 percent (4 of 9 votes cast).

So is it correct to say that candidate B is the voters’ most-preferred candidate?  Clearly not.

……

The point of this exercise is to make clear that describing the winner of any fair and honest election as being the ‘choice of the voters’ is fraught with potential inaccuracies.

As Kenneth Arrow showed, every method of making collective choices introduces some arbitrariness into the outcome.  Such arbitrariness is unavoidable; it is not unique to the method of general-election/runoff-election.

To the extent that choices must be made collectively, the unavoidable arbitrariness of collective-choice outcomes is simply a feature of reality that must be dealt with. But let’s not romanticize the outcomes of collective decision-making – including that of majoritarian elections.  These outcomes – no matter how above-board and fair and participatory are the processes that generate them – cannot be described unambiguously as reflecting ‘the will of The People’ or even ‘the will of the voters.’

EPA Rulemaking Matters! video entries

by Brian T. Schwartz | 10:11 pm, May 20, 2010

From Reason.tv: The Environmental Protection Agency’s “Rulemaking Matters!” contest invites filmmakers to submit short videos that explain how federal regulations touch our lives. The best video wins $2,500!  Presenting a reason.tv submission: “Rulemaking Matters!” The EPA webpage for the contest is here.  Check out Reason.tv’s other two entries for the “Rulemaking Matters!” contest. Also check [...]

Why McInnis might ask you to vote for Maes this weekend.

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 9:22 pm, May 20, 2010

The Colorado GOP State Assembly is this weekend.

Ryan Frazier 174 votes (49%), Lang Sias 154 (43%)

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 9:02 pm, May 20, 2010

Ryan Frazier won the 7th Congressional District with 174 votes, or 49% of 355 cast. Lang Sias made the primary ballot with 154 votes, or 43% of the votes. Mike Sheely got 29 votes and Michael Deming 1.
After the vote was announced, Frazier told me that he met his two objectives—make the ballot and win the top line. He said he will use the primary campaign to build support among Republicans and independents for the general election in November. The primary is Aug. 10 and the general election is Nov. 2.
 
Sias told me that he wasn’t surprised that he got 43% of the votes, although he wasn’t sure how he would do. He said he had a feeling he would do well after a debate that the candidates had Monday night. After the debate, a straw poll of the some 200 listeners gave him more votes than Frazier got, he said.
 
Getting 43% of the vote gives Sias credibility with voters and contributors, he said. 

J.J. Ament, Ali Hasan both feel good about state assembly

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 8:36 pm, May 20, 2010

Both Republicans who will be seeking votes for Treasurer at the Colorado GOP’s state convention in Loveland Saturday say they think they’ll do well. 
J.J. Ament is shooting for the top line, which goes to the candidate who gets the most votes. And Ali Hasan says he thinks he’s got a solid 40% of the votes and that Ament also should get 40%. 20% of the delegates are undecided, he said. I talked to both candidates during the voting session at the CD-7 assembly at the Jefferson County fairgrounds.
Ament says he has 800 contributors and has raised about $200,000.
In response to estimates that Hasan has spent $200,000 to $250,000 on his campaign so far, he said he isn’t sure but he may be over $200,000. He noted that at the end of the first reporting period, he was at about $170,000. He thinks his opponents are over estimating the frequency of his radio ads.
 

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers